Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.

Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.

"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3111 months ago

      Some states require nurses to buy their own personal liability insurance, but cops get a pass. Does that seem right?

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        1011 months ago

        In a lot of states you need to get a license to be a hairdresser but not to be a cop.

        • @Grimy
          link
          1011 months ago

          They already have insurance: you as the taxpayer.

            • @maryjayjay
              link
              1211 months ago

              You think you’re making a clear point, but you aren’t.

            • @Grimy
              link
              611 months ago

              You clearly said cops having liability insurance doesn’t make any sense and then doubled down by arguing that it’s because they have us the taxpayers instead.

              If cops needed to get individual insurance and the ones that were reckless had to pay more or maybe even stop being cops because they can’t be insured, it would probably help.

              Regardless, it comes off as if you are against it on top of belittling the above poster.

    • @maryjayjay
      link
      16
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      What they’re saying does make sense, it would just have to come with a few additional changes. Like making law enforcement officers easier to sue directly. Colorado has already revoked qualified immunity. It seems like you are being overly pedantic. No single step will fix the problem but the comment you are replying to is a step in a direction to address the issue

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
      link
      14
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      What I’m saying makes perfect sense.

      Police misconduct is so rampant specifically because the taxpayer picks up the tab. Cops themselves can weasel out of being responsible for just about anything because they’re shielded by their department, or city, or state, or whatever. But if we held them personally accountable – financially, in this case – that’d stop that bullshit quick smart and in a hurry. Doctors have to carry insurance personally. So do truck drivers. You want to know why? Because those jobs hold the potential for catastrophically fucking up, with consequences very likely to affect other people. Why should cops be any different?

      At the very least this should apply to all police who are not currently clocked in, in uniform, and on duty. Out here in the real world they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

      Ha. Actually, from TFA:

      As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.

      So guess who else agrees with me.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        I agree with you overall, but I expect taxes will just go up by however much is required to cover the insurance for the officers, so we will continue to pay for their malfeasance.